Calvin on 1 John 2:2

[Allan]

NOW, can we please get back to the OP.

 

[Rippon]

No , Allan . I am calling you on your accusations of lying . I do consider your repeated charges that I have "lied" about this or that childish . But you are supposed to be a man -- a Pastor yet , and you persist in that kind of conduct . You have done it several times over the last year or more and without warrant .

My "interpretation of Calvin" ?! When I quote him directly ?! Your remark about my intrepreting him is itself false .

You kept asking in post after post where I got my Calvin quote ( which you thought I had invented ) . I kept telling you it was in my post #21 . I repeatedly told you . But you A) ignored it B) missed it each time because of poor vision C) have trouble concentrating D) are contentious .

 

[jne1611]

Not in the least. However, salvation comes by or through faith and I beleive from his works Calvin acknowledges this as does scritpure <<-- Edited In:
It is by grace you are saved THROUGH Faith...
The redemptive work of Christ is completed but is only appropriated to those who have/will believe, otherwise we are saved regardless of if one believes or not. So we are in fact we are only finding out about the fact we are already saved in due time. (or for those who die not believing or having faith in Christ - they will find out when they get into heaven and realize God still saved them regardless of faith).

The work of Christ regarding Atonement is done, yes, but it must be applied via faith. If it was applied at his death and resurrection, then all the elect are actaully saved now and have no need for faith toward Christ. This is a view many Primitive Baptist hold, and makes faith useless. It is great if you have it but not necessary. It makes regeneration in the Calvinistic perspective a pointless means.

We are not saved unless we appropriate faith toward Christ and His Atoning Work. Otherwise you are saved without faith.

I have read some who hold that all these things were done in eternity. Making salvation by faith a realization of salvation instead of necessary to it. To me that is unfeasible. I think they called it eternal justification.

 

[jne1611]

1. I think you guys may have misunderstood me. I'm a five point Calvinist, who believes that Christ died only for the elect, who are effectively drawn, regenerated, giving faith to respond, is justified, adopted, and in on the road to glorification through sanctification.

2. When I say Christ blood is sufficient for all, I am only appealing to the fact that shed-blood is that of the Son of God, but we know that he has limited it to the elect, not because of foreseen faith, but because God chose to love them and exercise his sovereign, electing grace upon them.

3. I don't know how I can be a non-Calvinist, then.

Your basic position is that Christ's shed blood is sufficient enough that if God intended to save the whole world by it, then no more sacrifice would be needed to do that. Right? But God did not intend that. It is only for the elect, but if He had intended it, then the blood would save all the world. Is that a fair interpretation of what you believe?

 

[jne1611]

Remember this is about John Calvin and him believing in Particular Atonement or not.

I have displayed a couple places from Calvins Commentaries that show he believed that Christ DID die for all man kind but that salvation via the atonement is specific towards Gods elect only since they alone are to receive it "through faith".

The question to be asked now is :

Did Calvin beleive the 'L' as espoused today in Calvinism?

Editted in >>> He beleived Christ did in fact die for all. In his commentaries he states regarding many verses that Christ died for man kind. But his Institutes only are specific as to whom His atoning work is to be applied to. One must postualte or assume that Calvin did not believe Christ died for 'all' since his commentaries speak specifically and decidedly AGAINST that position. The work of atonement was for all, just as the OT Law declared it to, but it was only applied to those of faith.

I would say that he is confusing on this point. Because from statement to statement in his commentaries he seems to go back and forth with it.

 

[jne1611]

Calvins Opinion

This quote from Calvin on Jude verse 4 may shed light on why I said he is confusing on the subject to me.


Quote. "The only Lord God, or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. — But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. That Christ, then, may retain us as his peculiar treasure, we must remember that he died and rose again for us, that he might have dominion over our life and death." End Quote.

This is one of those verses that makes me believe Calvin may have had issues with a strict view on the L of the strict Calvinists.
Remember these statements have no bearing on my personal view of the doctrine, but the OP is about Calvin's view.

 

[TCGreek]

Your basic position is that Christ's shed blood is sufficient enough that if God intended to save the whole world by it, then no more sacrifice would be needed to do that. Right? But God did not intend that. It is only for the elect, but if He had intended it, then the blood would save all the world. Is that a fair interpretation of what you believe?

J.I. Packer captures it well, "An atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent."

 

[jne1611]

J.I. Packer captures it well, "An atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent."

Yeah. That is what I believe.

 

[Allan]

I have read some who hold that all these things were done in eternity. Making salvation by faith a realization of salvation instead of necessary to it. To me that is unfeasible. I think they called it eternal justification.

That is true, and don't see it in scripture that way either.

That aside for a minute.
I haven't seen you in AGES, brother. How are you?
I remember when your job was a real problem the last time you were on here (that I remember of course). You have stayed on my heart, and have continued praying for you. I hope the Lord has graced you with much peace since then.

 

[Allan]

I would say that he is confusing on this point. Because from statement to statement in his commentaries he seems to go back and forth with it.

Agree without question.

 

[TCGreek]

Agree without question.

1. Irrespective of Calvin's writings I would still be a five-point Calvinist, believing in Particular Atonement.

2. What is called Calvinism is not original with John Calvin. In fact, other writers have expressed the same ideas. And of course, I must agree with Spurgeon that Calvinism is a nickname for the gospel.

 

[Allan]

1. Irrespective of Calvin's writings I would still be a five-point Calvinist, believing in Particular Atonement.

I never would question that. Very few Calvinists have read themselves John Calvins works but usually have read what someones says about Calvins work.

Please remember, you opened the OP about Calvin and whether 'HE' believed Limited Atonement. I showed that by his own writtings he did not hold to the strictness present day Calvinst's demand. I didn't question your belief in relation to his works. But that HIS view was not as settled as many are led to believe on the subject. Everybody wants to paint people of their theological bent with pristine colors if possible. But the fact remains, if we do not allow them to speak for themselves about their view we may just be painting their portrait with colored water as they tell a different tale than ours.

2. What is called Calvinism is not original with John Calvin. In fact, other writers have expressed the same ideas.

True, but it was the main view of those ideas in his day and others earlier as well. He was just the first to sit down and systemitize them into one formulated theology. However, from their theological views and positions are the roots of your beliefs.

An aside- if you do a good deal of reading regarding reformed brethren around his time and earlier you will find a great number held that the death of Christ was not only sufficent for the world but made for the world;

And of course, I must agree with Spurgeon that Calvinism is a nickname for the gospel

Of course. Though I love Spurgeon and agree with much he has to say and some I do not, I will say this quote is the least correct he has made.

For one - IF Calvinism is only a nickname for the Gospel, then by default everyone not Calvinistic is damned already for they have not believed the Gospel. And if anyone preach another gospel they are accursed or destined for destruction (more literally damnation).

And that makes that quote unbiblical. For the Gospel is not Calvinims it is Christ. Calvinism is a theology ABOUT Christ and the Gospel, please don't confuse them.
:thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

I never would question that. Very few Calvinists have read themselves John Calvins works but usually have read what someones says about Calvins work.

Please remember, you opened the OP about Calvin and whether 'HE' believed Limited Atonement. I showed that by his own writtings he did not hold to the strictness present day Calvinst's demand. I didn't question your belief in relation to his works. But that HIS view was not as settled as many are led to believe on the subject. Everybody wants to paint people of their theological bent with pristine colors if possible. But the fact remains, if we do not allow them to speak for themselves about their view we may just be painting their portrait with colored water as they tell a different tale than ours.


True, but it was the main view of those ideas in his day and others earlier as well. He was just the first to sit down and systemitize them into one formulated theology. However, from their theological views and positions are the roots of your beliefs.

An aside- if you do a good deal of reading regarding reformed brethren around his time and earlier you will find a great number held that the death of Christ was not only sufficent for the world but made for the world;

Of course. Though I love Spurgeon and agree with much he has to say and some I do not, I will say this quote is the least correct he has made.

For one - IF Calvinism is only a nickname for the Gospel, then by default everyone not Calvinistic is damned already for they have not believed the Gospel. And if anyone preach another gospel they are accursed or destined for destruction (more literally damnation).

And that makes that quote unbiblical. For the Gospel is not Calvinims it is Christ. Calvinism is a theology ABOUT Christ and the Gospel, please don't confuse them.
:thumbs:

1. BY saying that Calvinism is a nickname for the gospel, Spurgeon was only reiterating in another way, "Salvation is of the Lord," which is the gospel.

2. It does not have to follow that because a person doesn't believe in Calvinism means that that person is damned.

3. A person is saved by the Lord, for "Salvation is of the Lord," which is what Calvinism is all about.

4. A man is saved but is not able to articulate how he became saved. Jesus says, "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" (John 6:65). Again, "Salvation is of the Lord," which is the gospel, which what Calvinism is all about.

5. But if you are uncomfortable with the term "Calvinism," then know this, "Salvation is of the Lord."

 

[jne1611]

That is true, and don't see it in scripture that way either.

That aside for a minute.
I haven't seen you in AGES, brother. How are you?
I remember when your job was a real problem the last time you were on here (that I remember of course). You have stayed on my heart, and have continued praying for you. I hope the Lord has graced you with much peace since then.

Bro. I can't tell you what it means to hear that you were praying then. That job just about drove me over the edge. I finally got out of it. And I am still getting over the stress I was under. But, I am coming out of it. I have never been so low in my life. Thanks so much for praying.

 

[Allan]

1. BY saying that Calvinism is a nickname for the gospel, Spurgeon was only reiterating in another way, "Salvation is of the Lord," which is the gospel.

2. It does not have to follow that because a person doesn't believe in Calvinism means that that person is damned.

3. A person is saved by the Lord, for "Salvation is of the Lord," which is what Calvinism is all about.

4. A man is saved but is not able to articulate how he became saved. Jesus says, "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" (John 6:65). Again, "Salvation is of the Lord," which is the gospel, which what Calvinism is all about.

5. But if you are uncomfortable with the term "Calvinism," then know this, "Salvation is of the Lord."

1. My point still stands. Though some may wish 'say' Calvinism is the gospel it is only reiterating it another way, the fact remains Calvinism is a view of the same Gospel we all (Cals and Non-Cals alike)believe. Yes, salvation is of the Lord, but again Calvinism is only a view of what that entails and not the immutable truth of it.

2. So the point remains, that if Calvinism is the Gospel message then anyone not preaching or teaching Calvinism is preaching and teaching a false Gospel and according to scripture is accursed or damned. So you must be a Calvinist or you are a non-believer. There is no margin for error on that, either the Gospel saves and you are therefore a Calvinist, or it does not because you are not one. I'm just saying this is the logical conclusion to that statement.

3. Salvation is of the Lord, that is what Non-Calvinism in all about to.

4. If a man is saved but does not know how to articulate the process, he can still declare "Salvation is of the Lord, He saved me" for that is all he knows. But it is not the same declaration to say "Calvinism, He saved me". We praise God and not our theology, let the redeemed say with true devotion and knowledge that "Salvation is of the Lord" for that is that needs indeed be said.

5. I have no problem with the word Calvinism nor Calvinism in general. I just have an issue with declaring to be something it isn't. But regardless, press on Brother in Faith and Love.

 

[Jarthur001]

Please remember, you opened the OP about Calvin and whether 'HE' believed Limited Atonement. I showed that by his own writtings he did not hold to the strictness present day Calvinst's demand.

Allan,

I remain puzzled at your actions on this subject. You mislead and have been shown that you mislead on this subject many times. The subject.."John Calvin did not believe in L".

Why do you keep doing this? If you do not believe in "L"...fine. But please stop trying to mislead others by quoting part of what Calvin, and know full well, if you read all the works of Calvin it does not show your view you try so hard to paint. Nor should you do this to any one else for that matter. It is just not becoming of your church.

 

[jne1611]

Calvin's Words

Here is another on of Calvin's statements that leads me to doubt his understanding on this subject.
Also we ought to have good care of those that have been redeemed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we see souls which have been so precious to God go to perdition, and we make nothing of it, that is to despise the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Sermon on Ephesians 5:11-14

 

[jne1611]

Calvin's Words

Here is another:
The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of his love toward the Church in shedding his own blood for it. Whereby it appeareth how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it followeth, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lieth. And this is a most cruel offense, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish; and it is said that God hath purchased the Church, to the end we may know that he would have it remain wholly to himself, because it is meet and right that he possess thoes whom he hath redeemed. Commentary on Acts 20:28

 

[Charles Meadows]

I'll add my 2 cents here...

TC and I have agreed to disagree on this before. And for the record I like Allan's angle here.

I would say that one must realize first that Calvin was a man who wrote theology. He was not inspired to write scripture - and his work is not scripture. Duh? Well yes we all would agree to this. But there is an extra dimension to this admission - namely that as a human his writings are not only fallible but at times not completely consistent. And is this not the case with any person? I shudder to think that someone would write down and bind up all of my sermons and statements and then look for incinsistencies! They would surely find some!

I have noted before, as a student of Calvin and his works, that his angle differs according to the purpose of the work. At times he appears to hold to limited atonement, and at other times not. It just depends on the context.

As it pertains to the passage quoted Calvin did have problems with this stance (that Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently for the elect) as held by Ursinus and many other Reformed theologians.

He notes in one of his sermons that it is "no small matter to have the souls perish which were bought by the blood of Christ".

Thus my points are thus:

1. Calvin, being a brilliant and sensitive exgete realized the tensions, both scriptural and philosophical, in giving a concrete answer to the question of the nature of the atonement. This is reflected by his many and yet slightly different comments on it. When he was relatively more "pressed" for an answer, as in dialogue with the Lutherans , he tended to give a "stricter" more "5 point" answer.

2. Given the first observation I deny that one quote from Calvin nails down his position on anything. This is the James White/Dave Hunt debate style tactic that never does justice to a complex position.

3. Calvinists, so described, are adherent to the precepts of "Calvinism" as defined nearly 50 years after Calvin's death. These precepts are generalized - and while I think they do well represent Calvin's positions - are sometimes put forth in a way that Calvin would have found simplistic.

 

[jne1611]

Calvin's Words

Here is a more revealing comment by Calvin on his concept:
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. Commentary on Romans 5:18.